David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (2):139-162 (2012)
Weighing complex sets of evidence (i.e., from multiple disciplines and often divergent in implications) is increasingly central to properly informed decision-making. Determining “where the weight of evidence lies” is essential both for making maximal use of available evidence and figuring out what to make of such evidence. Weighing evidence in this sense requires an approach that can handle a wide range of evidential sources (completeness), that can combine the evidence with rigor, and that can do so in a way other experts can assess and critique (transparency). But the democratic context in need of weight-of-evidence analysis also places additional constraints on the process, including communicability of the process to the general public, the need for an approach that can be used across a broad range of contexts (scope), and timeliness of process (practicality). I will compare qualitative and quantitative approaches with respect to both traditional epistemic criteria and criteria that arise from the democratic context, and argue that a qualitative explanatory approach can best meet the criteria and elucidate how to utilize the other approaches. This should not be surprising, as the approach I argue for is the one that most closely tracks general scientific reasoning.
|Keywords||Science and Policy Scientific Inference Weight of Evidence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Boaz Miller (2013). When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement. Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Kevin C. Elliott (2013). Douglas on Values: From Indirect Roles to Multiple Goals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):375-383.
Jacob Stegenga (2014). Down with the Hierarchies. Topoi 33 (2):313-322.
Similar books and articles
Eleonora Montuschi (2009). Questions of Evidence in Evidence-Based Policy. Axiomathes 19 (4):425-439.
Philip Dawid, William Twining & Mimi Vasilaki (eds.) (2011). Evidence, Inference and Enquiry. OUP/British Academy.
Mirit Shamir, Lior Shamir & Mary H. Durfee (2007). The Application of Fuzzy Logic to the Precautionary Principle. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):411-427.
Richard Gott (2003). Understanding and Using Scientific Evidence: How to Critically Evaluate Data. Sage.
Branden Fitelson & Richard Feldman (2012). Evidence of Evidence is Not (Necessarily) Evidence. Analysis 72 (1):85-88.
Andrew Bell, John Swenson-Wright & Karin Tybjerg (eds.) (2008). Evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
William L. Twining (2006/1994). Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Achinstein (2001). The Book of Evidence. Oxford University Press.
Nancy Cartwright & Jacob Stegenga (2011). A Theory of Evidence for Evidence-Based Policy. In Philip Dawid, William Twining & Mimi Vasilaki (eds.), Evidence, Inference and Enquiry. Oup/British Academy. 291.
Added to index2012-07-05
Total downloads92 ( #14,579 of 1,101,725 )
Recent downloads (6 months)58 ( #1,352 of 1,101,725 )
How can I increase my downloads?